# MOO vs. LPMUD, Pueblo, etc

John Maxwell (jmax@wimsey.com)
Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:00:10 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    The niftiest and most significant feature of Pueblo, as I see it is
    that it maintains the MUD real-time interactivity. You can run it
    almost entirely by typing -- which is what you want if there's live stuff
    happening in the room: people are talking, interacting with objects
    and whatnot. And as you type, you get nice, formatted, HTML output
    scrolling up your buffer. If there's a relevant graphic, there it is,
    if not, you just keep mudding.

    The trouble with the other approach, more in line with most of the
    MOO/WWW integration things, is that if forces you to interact with the
    MUD by clicking on things with your mouse, in a more-or-less static
    WWW window -- which does not seem natural, and not nearly as
    interactive, in the dialogical sense. Seems to kill the live feel of
    MUDding.

    Both systems give you formatted, graphic (etc) representations of the
    environment, but the way in which you actually work with it is much
    different.

    Hats off to Chaco -- sure wish there were a Mac port.

     --

      -John Maxwell

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    jmax@wimsey.com                                         jwmaxwel@sfu.ca
    Knossopolis Media Inc.              Can. Ctr. for Studies in Publishing
    http://www.knosso.com/                  http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/ccsp/